Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

You're certainly reenforcing your own statement with the sources that you present to support your argument.

How is it not biased? You've cited a conservative Christian writer who once suggested that being gay increases one's risk of getting cancer, and who cites a sociologist who wrote a book published by The Christian Institute.

Gregor Johann Mendel, a Moravian monk, is recognized as the father of genetics. By your lights, his religious convictions would seem to make his plant genetics work unacceptable. Moreover, a single statement by a believer or conservative can invalidate his or her whole body of research.

Thus, any fair-mined person must conclude that any information re. gay marriage is ipso facto false if it originates from a) a religious organization, or b) a conservative writer or organization. What you are really saying, so it seems, is that religious/conservative sources cannot enter the marketplace of ideas and truth.

In contrast, information reported by liberal sources is never questioned, never open to challenge. Even middle-of-the-road sources (the Mayo Clinic comes to mind) is attacked if it has the audacity to post something that suggests homosexuals should take precautions to protect their health.

The radical homosexual agenda is far more insidious than the majority of their supporters understand. Their goal has long been to Infiltrate positions of power and influence within the legal system to force anti discrimination laws upon those who dare expose homosexual immorality for what it is, and who refuse to accept their perversions.

I suppose you'd have a point if we hadn't already had a tremendous number of homosexuals in positions of great power. Some of them, sadly, had to hide their sexuality because of bigotry. Some of them were more open. But strangely, for all the time the country has supposedly been going to hell, it has never actually gotten there.

The radical homosexual agenda is far more insidious than the majority of their supporters understand. Their goal has long been to Infiltrate positions of power and influence within the legal system to force anti discrimination laws upon those who dare expose homosexual immorality for what it is, and who refuse to accept their perversions. The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.

Again, your fear is ungrounded. Churches today are perfectly free to discriminate on which marriages they will and will not perform. For example, it's downright common in MANY denominations to refuse to officiate an interfaith wedding. Every now and then a church in the American South hits the papers for refusing to perform an interracial marriage.

No one is going to force the LDS church to officiate a gay marriage, and anyone telling you otherwise is flat out wrong, probably lying to you.

Gregor Johann Mendel, a Moravian monk, is recognized as the father of genetics. By your lights, his religious convictions would seem to make his plant genetics work unacceptable. Moreover, a single statement by a believer or conservative can invalidate his or her whole body of research.

Thus, any fair-mined person must conclude that any information re. gay marriage is ipso facto false if it originates from a) a religious organization, or b) a conservative writer or organization. What you are really saying, so it seems, is that religious/conservative sources cannot enter the marketplace of ideas and truth.

In contrast, information reported by liberal sources is never questioned, never open to challenge. Even middle-of-the-road sources (the Mayo Clinic comes to mind) is attacked if it has the audacity to post something that suggests homosexuals should take precautions to protect their health.

Perhaps you can tell me why your god gives children cancer? Janandele is avoiding the question.

Gregor Johann Mendel, a Moravian monk, is recognized as the father of genetics. By your lights, his religious convictions would seem to make his plant genetics work unacceptable. Moreover, a single statement by a believer or conservative can invalidate his or her whole body of research.

Mendel was Silesian not Moravian.

Mendel's work on genetics was scientifically confirmed, Mormonism is not scientific.

Mendel's work complemented that of Darwin who was a pastor himself.

Furthermore, you have a strawman there. Nobody dismissed any opinion here because of the beliefs of the one holding that opinion, but because such opinions had no scientific basis.

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Thus, any fair-mined person must conclude that any information re. gay marriage is ipso facto false if it originates from a) a religious organization, or b) a conservative writer or organization. What you are really saying, so it seems, is that religious/conservative sources cannot enter the marketplace of ideas and truth.

Nope. Baseless opinions carry no scientific weight. Otherwise I might as well claim the moon is made of skittles, yet be surprised to be dismissed.

Originally Posted by skyrider44

In contrast, information reported by liberal sources is never questioned, never open to challenge. Even middle-of-the-road sources (the Mayo Clinic comes to mind) is attacked if it has the audacity to post something that suggests homosexuals should take precautions to protect their health.

Any source is open to challenge. It so happens that the ones with the weight of scientific evidence in their favour are the ones you don't much like.

And surely you understand the whole preceeding Mayo Clinic discussion, or did you not read those posts?

__________________Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

The radical homosexual agenda is far more insidious than the majority of their supporters understand. Their goal has long been to Infiltrate positions of power and influence within the legal system to force anti discrimination laws upon those who dare expose homosexual immorality for what it is, and who refuse to accept their perversions. The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.

Please, do tell, who is suggesting that LDS churches would have to marry same sex couples? There are no laws on the books anywhere in the US that would direct any church to perform a wedding. If the LDS doesn't want to do a ceremony for a same sex couple they don't have to. You're making up an issue that doesn't exist.

Gregor Johann Mendel, a Moravian monk, is recognized as the father of genetics. By your lights, his religious convictions would seem to make his plant genetics work unacceptable. Moreover, a single statement by a believer or conservative can invalidate his or her whole body of research.

Yes, we all know about Mendel. Remember, you used him in your attempt to justify your assertion that faith is a component of the scientific method. Ironically, I pointed out then that Mendel's religious beliefs were not a part of his scientific methodology. If Mendel had argued for some unsupported claim on the basis of its religious correctness, then you might have a point. But he didn't, so you don't.

Quote:

Thus, any fair-mined person must conclude that any information re. gay marriage is ipso facto false if it originates from a) a religious organization, or b) a conservative writer or organization. What you are really saying, so it seems, is that religious/conservative sources cannot enter the marketplace of ideas and truth.

If someone makes claims about international Jewish banking conspiracies and cites "research" originating from Arian Nation websites, it would be about as objective as citing the anti-homosexual "research" that you have presented. I'm sure that many religious people are involved in legitimate science concerning the sociology of various homosexual issues. That isn't a problem as long as they don't let their religious views influence their research. But all you have managed to produce is pseudo-science, designed to appeal to people who don't know how the scientific method works, and produced by bigots who want to justify their desire to discriminate against people whom they regard as morally inferior to themselves.

Quote:

In contrast, information reported by liberal sources is never questioned, never open to challenge. Even middle-of-the-road sources (the Mayo Clinic comes to mind) is attacked if it has the audacity to post something that suggests homosexuals should take precautions to protect their health.

I'm getting the strong impression that you are not even bothering to read much of what is being posted in this thread. It has been explained to you more than once that the Mayo Clinic page you cited was not being disputed, at all. What was disputed was your false claim that it was presenting issues unique to homosexuals. Is that so hard to comprehend? What does your failure to pay attention to such a simple point say about your objectivity regarding this issue?

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 17,348

Originally Posted by Janadele

The radical homosexual agenda is far more insidious than the majority of their supporters understand. Their goal has long been to Infiltrate positions of power and influence within the legal system to force anti discrimination laws upon those who dare expose homosexual immorality for what it is, and who refuse to accept their perversions. The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.

So much prejudice. So many misstatements.

1. There is no "radical homosexual agenda". A pervasive humanist/rationalist agenda, maybe. Your claim of a "radical homosexual agenda" is no more a reflection of reality than a child huddling under the covers, sobbing, "Poppa, poppa, in the closet a boogeyman is!".

2. Are you pretending that it ought to be acceptable for a citizen to practice illegal discrimination?

3. You are welcome to your opinions about "immorality". However, your opinions about "immorality" have, and should have, no sway upon or suasion over the behaviours of consenting adults in private. We have been over this. If you, personally, find homosexuality, or any other lifestyle or practice, "immoral", do not participate in it. It's that easy.

4. In what way do you imagine the CJCLDS might not be able to "perform legal marriages", when marriage equality becomes the law? You have yet to support your biased, bigoted claim that any church will be "forced" to perform marriages for anyone...this is still more of your "gaoled pastor" fiction.

5. If the CJCLDS will "never capitulate" to the law of the land, why does the CJCLDS believe it has the right to dictate the behaviours of others, even (or especially) non-members?

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 17,348

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Open-minded individuals who sincerely seek the truth about a given issue, do not influence the outcome by selectively choosing sources. Truth knows no political, economic, or religious constraints. Truth exists where it exists. You seem to believe that if one is a Catholic, his/her conception of truth is predetermined by his/her Catholicism. Not so. There are many Catholics who do not accept certain aspects of Catholic doctrine, yet they continue to be Catholics. The same is true of Mormons. Some LDS believe the BoM is a 19th century work written by Joseph Smith. Yet they continue to be faithful Latter-day Saints.

Your "interesting" observation at the beginning of this post manages to be both simplistic and naïve.

Needs must, when the devil drives, eh?

I will refrain from pointing out the fact that you are arguing with a man of straw you, yourself, have raised...

Any chance of you commenting on the quality of the opinion piece about actual research?

You seem to miss the effect that pervasive bigotry and wishful thinking has upon opinion pieces.

Any comment on the problems and misuses of the Regenerus "study"?

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

The radical homosexual agenda is far more insidious than the majority of their supporters understand. Their goal has long been to Infiltrate positions of power and influence within the legal system to force anti discrimination laws upon those who dare expose homosexual immorality for what it is, and who refuse to accept their perversions. The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.

What you are saying, if you said it in ordinary language, is close to the truth, but it's not insidious because it's not hidden. The so-called "homosexual agenda" as I perceive it has long been to get people to accept homosexuality as normal, which does indeed include, of course, anti discrimination laws, and the ability to run for and hold political office. These are matters to do with civil society, not with religion. Where I live, for example, anti discrimination laws have been in place for much longer than gay marriage has. You can't throw gay people out of their homes or fire them from their jobs, and you can't take their children away. Wow, ain't that a terrible shame? Those laws do not inhibit free speech, or the expression of disgust, hatred or disapproval in e religious context. It's true that you can't necessarily shout on the street what you can shout from the pulpit, but that's always been true of many things. It is true too that a church-owned organization cannot discriminate in non-religious activities, though there's a lot of free pass for the churches even here. But if the Mormons ran a hospital they could not refuse to serve gay patients, and probably could not vet candidates for janitorial positions on their private sex lives (at least openly).

There is nothing, and never has been anything, in this development, which prevents any church from performing legal marriages or from deciding whom not to marry. The laws allow any church to be the venue in which a legal marriage is performed according to the preferences of that church. What the churches cannot do is prevent adherents of other religions, or no religion at all, from performing civil or church marriages that they don't like. And why on earth should this not be so?

I have highlighted the last part of your post, because it contains an ongoing misunderstanding, and have highlighted part of mine because it contains an oft-repeated but apparently ignored statement. Churches hold a lot of power in our society, and are exempt from many of the rules that must govern a secular civil society. Gay marriage is performed in many states in the US. Churches do not have to perform them if they prefer not to. Period. End of argument. To suggest otherwise is a falsehood and a wicked one - not a misunderstanding but a lie. If you want a good example of the "insidious," start there.

__________________Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

The radical homosexual agenda is far more insidious than the majority of their supporters understand. Their goal has long been to Infiltrate positions of power and influence within the legal system to force anti discrimination laws upon those who dare expose homosexual immorality for what it is, and who refuse to accept their perversions. The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.

equality isn't a radical idea.

Those who oppose equality are the radicals.

For example:
Klu Klux Clan, The Taliban, Neo Nazis, any number of urban city gangs, ...the list goes on and on and on.

__________________What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 17,348

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Gregor Johann Mendel, a Moravian monk, is recognized as the father of genetics. By your lights, his religious convictions would seem to make his plant genetics work unacceptable. Moreover, a single statement by a believer or conservative can invalidate his or her whole body of research.

Well, not actually, and it would be simplistic and naive of you to claim so.

Had Fr. Mendel, for instance, claimed that it was impious to investigate why genetic combinations happen in the ratios they do, because those combinations simply represent the perfect will of 'god', that would, in fact, be a reason to find his conclusions unacceptable. Had he, for instance, claimed that a "heathen" would not see the same ratios, because she would not find favor with 'god', that would be a reason to find his conclusions unacceptable. If he distorted his findings to reflect a papal mandate of what the "holy" ratio should be, that would be a reason to find his conclusions unacceptable.

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Thus, any fair-mined person must conclude that any information re. gay marriage is ipso facto false if it originates from a) a religious organization, or b) a conservative writer or organization. What you are really saying, so it seems, is that religious/conservative sources cannot enter the marketplace of ideas and truth.

Well, no. However, when religious organizations, and conservative organizations, and conservative religious organizations distort the findings of studies, they should not be surprised to find their contributions discounted.
See, for example, the hordes, simply fabulous hordes, of egyptologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, linguists, and historians depending upon JS' "translations" of the BoA as their sole source of historical and lexicographical accuracy.

Originally Posted by skyrider44

In contrast, information reported by liberal sources is never questioned, never open to challenge. Even middle-of-the-road sources (the Mayo Clinic comes to mind) is attacked if it has the audacity to post something that suggests homosexuals should take precautions to protect their health.

...which recommended precautions, also urged for heterosexuals, have what, exactly, to do with the "good of the children"?

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Gregor Johann Mendel, a Moravian monk, is recognized as the father of genetics. By your lights, his religious convictions would seem to make his plant genetics work unacceptable. Moreover, a single statement by a believer or conservative can invalidate his or her whole body of research.

Mendel's work was well documented and substantiated. It didn't rely on dogma or authority to make it's claim.

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Thus, any fair-mined person must conclude that any information re. gay marriage is ipso facto false if it originates from a) a religious organization, or b) a conservative writer or organization. What you are really saying, so it seems, is that religious/conservative sources cannot enter the marketplace of ideas and truth.

not at all. What he is saying is that these sources you quote are not original research works, but rather opinion pieces.

Why do you avoid discussing the actual data instead of interpretations of the data?

Originally Posted by skyrider44

In contrast, information reported by liberal sources is never questioned, never open to challenge.

You must back this argument up with evidence.
What sources are you defining as "liberal"?

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Even middle-of-the-road sources (the Mayo Clinic comes to mind) is attacked if it has the audacity to post something that suggests homosexuals should take precautions to protect their health.

You again are missing the point. The Mayo clinic report isn't being attacked. What is being attacked is your interpretation of what the report says.

__________________What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.

I don't know about Australia, but I bet it's pretty much the same as in the United States regarding the legality of marriage. Here, if you get married in a church/temple (Mormon, Catholic, Hebrew, Muslim, Baptist, etcetera), but you don't get a state marriage license, then you still aren't considered to be legally married. The religious recognition of a marriage and the state recognition of a marriage are two separate issues. If a Catholic woman finds out that her husband has been cheating on her, she can file for divorce and be legally divorced from him in the eyes of the state, yet wait years for the RCC to officially annul the marriage.

Not performing same-sex marriages is part of the religious freedom of the LDS, just as it is part of their religious freedom not to perform Muslim or Hindu marriages. What isn't part of your religious freedom is telling non-Mormons that they can't get married because their union doesn't conform to Mormon morality.

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

The radical homosexual agenda is far more insidious than the majority of their supporters understand. Their goal has long been to Infiltrate positions of power and influence within the legal system to force anti discrimination laws upon those who dare expose homosexual immorality for what it is, and who refuse to accept their perversions. The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.

*GASP*

Not the radical homosexual agenda, trying to get equal rights for all people regardless of their sexual orientation! The horror!

__________________One prefers, of course, on all occasions to be stainless and above reproach, but, failing that, the next best thing is unquestionably to have got rid of the body.
― P.G. Wodehouse

To what end? That's what you will not address? So, I'll ask one more time the question you refuse to answer, to what end do you point out the promiscuity of gays (lesbians are less sexually active than all other groups)?

DO - YOU - HAVE - A - POINT?

Assuming a gay couple has children, and assuming the couple is promiscuous,
what effect do you think the couple's lifestyle is likely to have on their children?

OK. We have dealt with the fiction that children need to be "protected" from being adopted by loving couples in stable relationships, and we have dealt with the fact that the honest, non-fraudulent, openly-available studies show, if anything, an advantage to children raised by same-gender couples in stable relationships (an effect which may, in fact, reflect SES more than any other factor).

Not so fast. The underlined portion of your post takes liberties with the truth. There are other studies, just as credible, that show children raised by SS parents suffer a variety of problems compared to children raised by heterosexual parents. I have posted some of those studies, but for you and some others they are dead on arrival.

Where do you find the "right of religious organizations to determine whom they will join in 'holy wedlock' " to need protecting?

Is this more of your "gaoled" pastor false witness?

Please demonstrate a single, actual, honestly-described case of a church entity being forced by law to perform a marriage between same-gender individuals.[/quote]

The radical homosexual agenda is far more insidious than the majority of their supporters understand. Their goal has long been to Infiltrate positions of power and influence within the legal system to force anti discrimination laws upon those who dare expose homosexual immorality for what it is, and who refuse to accept their perversions. The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.

The Mormon church isn't being demanded to perform civil unions, same sex or otherwise, so it's pretty easy to refuse to capitulate to demands which aren't being made.

Hey, maybe the Mormon church could refuse to capitulate to the demand of allowing blacks into the priesthood next. Oh, wait...

__________________"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie

Assuming a gay couple has children, and assuming the couple is promiscuous,
what effect do you think the couple's lifestyle is likely to have on their children?

Assuming a heterosexual couple has children, and assuming the couple is promiscuous, what effect do you think the couple's lifestyle is likely to have on their children?

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

Assuming a gay couple has children, and assuming the couple is promiscuous,
what effect do you think the couple's lifestyle is likely to have on their children?

Based upon the data, if they aren't poor, they will likely have a very good outcome.

There is only one study which suggested otherwise, but that one clearly has questionable methods. Considering you haven't bothered to defend the paper, one must assume you know it isn't defendable.

__________________What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 17,348

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Assuming a gay couple has children, and assuming the couple is promiscuous, what effect do you think the couple's lifestyle is likely to have on their children?

Assume a gender-diverse couple has kids, one of their own, and one each from previous marriages; assume also that both members of the couple are penuring themselves with alimony and child support; assume further that the couple is individually promiscuous (and may be promiscuous together).

What effect do you suppose two dissolved marriages (with at least two other children (the ones getting child support) , three "step" ramifications, low SES, and the couple's lifestyle are likely to have on the children?

Or, assume that the same-gender couple, after 10 years of devoted fidelity and successful careers, decide to adopt two disadvantaged children and provide for them stability and the emotional/financial support. What effect do you suppose the couple's lifestyle will have upon the children?

And what has any of that to do with denying adults capable of consent the benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 17,348

Originally Posted by skyrider44

[/u]

Not so fast. The underlined portion of your post takes liberties with the truth. There are other studies, just as credible, that show children raised by SS parents suffer a variety of problems compared to children raised by heterosexual parents. I have posted some of those studies, but for you and some others they are dead on arrival.

Every "study", every opinion piece, every editorial you have posted has been analyzed, and responded to.

The fact that you do not like the results does not change the truth.

(see, for example, your misstatements about the Mayo Clinic article)

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Where do you find the "right of religious organizations to determine whom they will join in 'holy wedlock' " to need protecting?

Is this more of your "gaoled" pastor false witness?

Please demonstrate a single, actual, honestly-described case of a church entity being forced by law to perform a marriage between same-gender individuals.

It is difficult to tell whether this is an honest typo (they do happen), or a misattribution. Either way, this time, instead of attributing to me words I did not, in fact, post, you are failing to attribute to me words that are,in fact, mine.

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Assuming a gay couple has children, and assuming the couple is promiscuous,
what effect do you think the couple's lifestyle is likely to have on their children?

Is your question related to the issue of gay marriage, or to other issues. If a gay couple really wants children, they can have children whether married or not. The main effect of marriage on the children will be that they are accorded the legal protections given to families by marriage of the parents. If they are promiscuous, the harm is probably about the same as it would be if a heterosexual couple were promiscuous. It would be utterly crazy to suggest that allowing gay couples to marry would make them more promiscuous than they now are.

Are you arguing that existing gay rights should be rescinded?

Are you arguing that gay parents should lose custody of their children?

Are you arguing that promiscuous parents should lose custody of their children?

Are you arguing that marriage makes couples more promiscuous?

The content of the argument is a mystery to me. Actually whether it could even be called an argument is questionable. Assuming this and assuming that assumption results, no doubt, and usually as one wishes.

I suppose one could at least count it as progress that children are being factored in, since further up the thread much the same argument was used to suggest that gay couples had no reason to get married because they would be childless. Nothing in the argument now presented seems to apply to anything that changes when couples get married. We are assured that the argument is about marriage and not simply "anti-gay" but the difference is not being well communicated.

__________________Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

Really, I’m pretty sure they would prefer you just pretend they don’t exist. Let them get on with their lives. Let them grow up, fall in love if they want, get married if they want, get divorced if they want, make friends, get jobs, hang out, stay alone, lead good lives, or screw up. Just forget about them, stop trying to run their lives, and just let them be the people they are. For goodness sake, just

Gregor Johann Mendel, a Moravian monk, is recognized as the father of genetics. By your lights, his religious convictions would seem to make his plant genetics work unacceptable. Moreover, a single statement by a believer or conservative can invalidate his or her whole body of research.

Thus, any fair-mined person must conclude that any information re. gay marriage is ipso facto false if it originates from a) a religious organization, or b) a conservative writer or organization. What you are really saying, so it seems, is that religious/conservative sources cannot enter the marketplace of ideas and truth.

In contrast, information reported by liberal sources is never questioned, never open to challenge. Even middle-of-the-road sources (the Mayo Clinic comes to mind) is attacked if it has the audacity to post something that suggests homosexuals should take precautions to protect their health.

The arguments must be separate from the arguer. They are either valid or not. That the Mao Clinic has found some correlation in no way invalidates the mountain of evidence that demonstrates that gays and lesbians, on average make for good parents.

Of course this stands in contrast to an identifiable group that has increased risk for children, by that I mean poor families. You feel that poor parents (heterosexual) have some right to have children even if those children are, by definition, disadvantaged. The same cannot be said of children of gays and lesbians.

"The homosexual rights movement is rotten to the core. It has no future. There is no life in it. "

Riiiiight. Just like the civil rights movements of the 1960's.

Now that I think about it, your comments about race mixing prompt this next question. Do you believe the civil rights movement was rotten to the core, the way you apparently believe the gay rights movement is today?

Chandler Webb received the shot on October 15 during a routine physical, after he had decided to go on a mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The day after the exam, Chandler became extremely ill – suffering from vomiting and headaches. A little more than a week later, Chandler slipped into a coma and spent nearly a month on life support at Intermountain Medical Center in Murray, Utah.

Clearly this child was doing the work of LDS church. According to your belief system he was following God's will. Did he and his parents not pray as hard as the mormons who were saved miraculously during the recent natural disaster we discussed in this thread?

If a handful of Mormons claiming to be saved by God's intervention during a natural disaster is proof that the LDS church is the one true church then would not this tragic death be a data point in favor of the argument that perhaps it is not?

If this boy's tragic death is not evidence against the LDS church then why are claims of people being miraculously saved evidence in favor of it? Is not ignoring one and accepting the other not the very definition of dishonest cherry picking?

So I went to a Christmas market or wein nachts markt in German this evening for a gluh wein and a pork sandwich. There were two Mormon missionaries at the exit to the S Bhan station. What a waste. There these two kids were at one of the best fests in Germany trying to get Germans to believe a fraud and ignoring what could have been a really good time. It's a shame really. They should have ditched the name tags and checked out the market. They would have got more out of that than perpetuating a shabby lie.

Assuming a gay couple has children, and assuming the couple is promiscuous,
what effect do you think the couple's lifestyle is likely to have on their children?

Assuming a poor couple have children and assuming they are abusive and neglectvile, what effect do you think the couples lifestyle is likely to have on their children?

[sources missing] where is your evidence that allowing gays and lesbians to marry will increase the number of children in gay and lesbian households?

I'm sorry, we've already been here. You can't special plead on this. Either we disallow poor people to marry to protect children or we allow gay couples to marry.

Oh, and answer me this skyrider where on the application for a wedding license does it ask if the heterosexual couple are promiscuous?

We've been over this ground over and over. It's beginning to become disingenuous for you to respond with the same premise. It's ad hoc rationalization to justify your opinions. If you truly cared about the welfare of children and you wanted to use marriage to improve their lives you would not allow poor people to marry.

Clearly this child was doing the work of LDS church. According to your belief system he was following God's will. Did he and his parents not pray as hard as the mormons who were saved miraculously during the recent natural disaster we discussed in this thread?

If a handful of Mormons claiming to be saved by God's intervention during a natural disaster is proof that the LDS church is the one true church then would not this tragic death be a data point in favor of the argument that perhaps it is not?

It's all in how you pick your data.

If you lose your wallet, pray, then find it, well, then god did that. If your child dies of lukemia then that has nothing to do with god. BTW: You can pray to a jug of milk and get the same answer, yes/no/wait (see The best optical illusion in the world!)

Gregor Johann Mendel, a Moravian monk, is recognized as the father of genetics. By your lights, his religious convictions would seem to make his plant genetics work unacceptable. Moreover, a single statement by a believer or conservative can invalidate his or her whole body of research.

Thus, any fair-mined person must conclude that any information re. gay marriage is ipso facto false if it originates from a) a religious organization, or b) a conservative writer or organization. What you are really saying, so it seems, is that religious/conservative sources cannot enter the marketplace of ideas and truth.

In contrast, information reported by liberal sources is never questioned, never open to challenge. Even middle-of-the-road sources (the Mayo Clinic comes to mind) is attacked if it has the audacity to post something that suggests homosexuals should take precautions to protect their health.

No, that's a straw man. If the data goes against consensus, and it does, then it's fair to look at possible self serving motives for why we ought not toss out the scientific consensus.

And I've given you all of the links for the sociological data that disputes your claim and I've given you court transcripts (and a reenactment) where the plaintiffs for prop 8 (funded in part by the LDS church) were asked point blank for such evidence and they responded they didn't need to supply any evidence.

At oral argument on proponents' motion for summary judgment, the court posed to proponents' counsel the assumption that "the state's interest in marriage is procreative" and inquired how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects that interest. Counsel replied that the inquiry was "not the legally relevant question," but when pressed for an answer, counsel replied: "Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don't know."…

Quote:

Blankenhorn’s testimony…provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate. During closing arguments, proponents again focused on the contention that "responsible procreation is really at the heart of society's interest in regulating marriage." When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported this contention, proponents' counsel replied, "you don't have to have evidence of this point."

I think it is very disingenuous to pretend that the jury is out on this subject. It's not. At trial there was provided a mountain of scientific evidence in the way of substantive sociological studies that clearly demonstrated that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would help children not hurt them.

I have discussed the radical homosexual agenda with a number of homosexuals and bisexuals over the last 20 years. The agenda is very simple.

Be left alone.
Not be beat up for being gay.
Not be fired for being gay.
Not be paid less for being gay.
Not be denied the same rights straight people have.
Not be subjected to endless screaming about religion for being gay.
Not be falsely accused of pedophilia for being gay.
Not lose custody of their children for being gay.

That's pretty much it. What part(s) of that agenda do you find insidious, immoral or worth opposing?

The arguments must be separate from the arguer. They are either valid or not. That the Mao Clinic has found some correlation in no way invalidates the mountain of evidence that demonstrates that gays and lesbians, on average make for good parents.

Of course this stands in contrast to an identifiable group that has increased risk for children, by that I mean poor families. You feel that poor parents (heterosexual) have some right to have children even if those children are, by definition, disadvantaged. The same cannot be said of children of gays and lesbians.

You are going way out of your way to engage in special pleading.

It's important to note that not all religious people are dodging the issue. Dr. Richard D. Land for example, advocates that single mothers offer their children for adoption so as to avoid denying the child a Father. He takes skyrider44's line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion, at least as far as single parents are concerned.

A former top official in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) chided single mothers in a column for the Christian Post, saying that giving them up for adoption into nuclear families would be best for everyone involved.

“Keeping the baby is almost never preferable to allowing a baby to be adopted into a solid, faithful Christian home,” former SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission head Richard Land wrote in the column, which was published on Saturday. “A single mother who keeps her baby is quite often denying that baby the father that God wants for that baby, and every baby, to have.”

Land published the column in conjunction with National Adoption Day, saying Christian married couples could best demonstrate their faith by taking in a foster child. He also called it a better solution to “problem” pregnancies — saying the “problem” was often the result of the lack of a father — than abortion.

Frankly, comments like Land's make Sky and Jan's refusal to address their arguments in a more complete context quite puzzling. It's obvious that there are religious leaders with substantial followings who DO admit the conclusions of the arguments against gay marriage.

Why are Sky and Jan not admitting the logical end point of their "arguments?" I suspect they, deep down, recognize the horror of that conclusion and as a result are struggling with the conflict between the dogma they've been taught and their own conscience.

I went, this afternoon, to the US Government's Child Welfare site (Child Welfare is part of the Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children and Families) to see what it had to say about same-sex couples and adoption, and I was surprised by the results (I don't know why, I guess I just never really thought about it before this thread).

They give a common "issue and concern" why people might object to homosexual couples adopting (I underlined the issue), and then give the evidence, and footnotes to the studies regarding the claim. Here's what it had to say.

Quote:

Children will be molested by homosexual parents. In a study of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be gay or lesbian. More relevant was the finding that of the cases involving molestation of a boy by a man, seventy-four percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boys mother or another female relative. The conclusion was found that "a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual."

Quote:

Children raised in homosexual households will become gay. The bulk of evidence to date indicates that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. As one researcher put it, "If heterosexual parenting is insufficient to ensure that children will also be heterosexual, then there is no reason to conclude that children of homosexuals also will be gay".
Studies asking the children of gay fathers to express their sexual orientation showed the majority of children to be heterosexual, with the proportion of gay offspring similar to that of a random sample of the population. An assessment of more than 300 children born to gay or lesbian parents in 12 different samples shows no evidence of "significant disturbances of any kind in the development of sexual identity among these individuals".

Quote:

Children will develop problems growing up in an 'unnatural' lifestyle. Courts have expressed concern that children raised by gay and lesbian parents may have difficulties with their personal and psychological development, self-esteem, and social and peer relationships. Because of this concern, researchers have focused on children's development in gay and lesbian families.
The studies conclude that children of gay or lesbian parents are no different than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. In "Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents," a 1992 article in Child Development, Charlotte Patterson states, "Despite dire predictions about children based on well-known theories of psychosocial development, and despite the accumulation of a substantial body of research investigating these issues, not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents."

I mean, that's good enough for me. So that means that the only reason to be against same-sex marriage and adoption outside the Church is discrimination, bullying, etc. I think it's interesting on the Church's MormonsandGays website,

Originally Posted by LDS site: MormonsandGays.org

From a public relations perspective it would be easier for the Church to simply accept homosexual behavior. That we cannot do, for God’s law is not ours to change.

I am hoping that what this means is the same thing as the blacks and the Priesthood. It's not our law to change, but God can through modern revelation if He sees fit. The Church is now encouraging open dialog and love toward the homosexual community something I had not seen before. Therefore, I am hopeful that someday we might hear the prophet tell us the news.

I feel that if there is someone out there who meets all the criteria, and has a heart of gold, why make the child suffer by keeping him in an orphanage or passing him around every so many months from foster home to foster home? Why not give him/her a forever home with a nice, loving homosexual couple?

: Mendel's work on genetics was scientifically confirmed, Mormonism is not scientific.

Are you aware of any religion whose work has been "scientifically confirmed"?
That aside, you miss my point. Some on this thread have dismissed out-of-hand research sponsored by religious/conservative organizations. I brought up Mendel to point out that the "The Father of Genetics" (the titles vary) did his work under the aegis of a monastery.

Quote:

: Mendel's work complemented that of Darwin who was a pastor himself.

Darwin was a pastor? Can his work be trusted?

Quote:

: Furthermore, you have a strawman there. Nobody dismissed any opinion here because of the beliefs of the one holding that opinion, but because such opinions had no scientific basis.

Not so. Work done on SS parenting by researchers affiliated with conservative and religious organizations has been excoriated on the basis of affiliation alone.

Quote:

: Nope. Baseless opinions carry no scientific weight. Otherwise I might as well claim the moon is made of skittles, yet be surprised to be dismissed.

I don't know to what this refers, though it's little more than a statement of the obvious.

Quote:

: Any source is open to challenge. It so happens that the ones with the weight of scientific evidence in their favour are the ones you don't much like.

So it would seem, given the volume of favorable reports about SS parenting hereon. I note, not without amusement, that the well left-of-center New Yorker magazine recently published a pro homosexual piece (as I recall, it was about gay marriage, but could have included SS parenting). Borrowing the gay activists' tactics, it would be appropriate for me to dismiss/besmirch that article based on its politics.

Quote:

: And surely you understand the whole preceeding Mayo Clinic discussion, or did you not read those posts?

The fact that the Mayo Clinic found it important/necessary to warn homosexuals about the dangers inherent in their lifestyles--yes, that IS what they did, and they did it fully aware that they would take heat for doing so-- that fact speaks for itself. The "discussion" to which you refer was designed to mitigate the article's impact.